14 Pages Posted: 8 Feb 2013
Date Written: January 29, 2013
A bad reading of the facts in NFIB v. Sebelius has led to new limitations on Congress’s Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Spending Clause powers. The decision appeared to use healthcare as a vehicle for constitutional change, leading to interpretive gymnastics that invite further litigation. This essay highlights the factual errors in Chief Justice Roberts’s and the joint dissent’s opinions and explains why Justice Ginsburg’s more fact-attuned opinion was the correct analysis of the case.
Keywords: Supreme Court, NFIB v. Sebelius, Medicaid, federalism, health reform
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Huberfeld, Nicole, Heed Not the Umpire (Justice Ginsburg Called NFIB) (January 29, 2013). University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law Heightened Scrutiny, Vol. 15, No. 43, 2013. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2213466